The legendary cricketer-turned politician Imran Khan is the talk of thetown wherever you go in Pakistan. According to a recently released PEWsurvey, IK stands at 68% popularity in Pakistan and prima facie is themost popular leader in Pakistan. His popularity within the youth andfemales (almost 70% of the total population) is unmatchable. However,the 15 year journey as a politician has not been an easy and pleasantone for him. During this time, Khan has come face to face with multipleadversaries. I will attempt to address each major concern regarding Khansahab, his politics and leave it to readers to decide if the voicesraised are genuine or not.

First and foremost, one should keep in mind that his spotlesspersonality and track record leaves very little opportunity for hisopposition to taint his image. Hence, starting from 1996 (when he firstestablished his political party) Imran Khan has come face to face withugly criticism, mostly revolving around his personal life pertaining tohis playboy image. During the 1997 elections a major political partyactually spent a handsome amount to hire private detectives and used oneof their very effective resource to highlight the infamous Sita Whiteepisode and to target Khan for being "morally" corrupt. While it is truethat for public figures their personal life ceases to remain personal, Ifeel that in this case the Khan opposition went quite overboard. Khanhas to date made it a point not to bring anyone's personal life underdiscussion and strictly confines himself to criticism aimed at thepublic dealings of these political figures; and instead of refutingKhan's allegations these parties go on to bring his personal life underthe spotlight. Similar tactics were tried by another major politicalparty in 2007 after Imran bashed them for being responsible for the 12thMay 2007 carnage. Both these attempts targeted Khan with immense forceand he suffered tremendous blows but he is a survivor and today, afterall these allegations he still stands at 68% popularity in Pakistan.

During the initial part of his political career, Imran was also labeledas a sponsored stooge of the Jewish lobby. This was further aggravatedafter his marriage to the British heiress Jemima Goldsmith. Today thatsame "pro-Israel" member of the Jewish "lobby" is labeled as TalibanKhan. However, if we analyze his stance from the day he began politicsto this day we will notice that there are hardly any contradictions andhis stances on foreign policy, free and fair judiciary, self-esteem,sovereignty etc have all remained constant. As a result, the onlypossible way for him to become a Taliban supporter and a Jewish lobbymember at the same time is if the Jews and Talibans somehow becomeallies (seems highly unlikely).

In recent times, Imran Khan has been vociferously criticized for beingclose to the "right-wing" Islamists as allegedly his stance is close totheir anti-American stance. This is the common talk these days amongstthe so called "liberals". In my opinion, these left-wing self proclaimedsecularists are actually "liberal extremists". The word secular catersto someone who keeps politics and religion separate which this groupmiserably fails to do. In their eyes, anyone who will talk aboutreligion, and/or practice it is a right-wing mullah. Whereas, just likethey choose to ignore certain "other" characteristics as "personal" lifethey should ignore one's religious beliefs and/or practices as this alsofalls under the personal domain. What analysts should focus on issomeone's public dealings and what his/her services are for the nationrather than what their religious mindset is as leadership cannot berestricted to any specific religion or none thereof. A prime and recentexample of this phenomenon is Tayyip Erdogan's re-election as PrimeMinister for Turkey. The man has openly been a right wing conservativeand continues to be one in a secular country. Yet, his fellow countrymenelected him for the third time despite the fact that he poses a seriousthreat to Turkey's secular outlook.

As far as the allegations are concerned regarding Khan being a Talibansympathizer; well, lets establish certain facts. Khan has never oncesupported the notion of killing innocent people to achieve some goal.Every terrorist attack and/or brutal actions by the police or terroristshave always been condemned. However, to root out extremism, he has atheory and that theory involves sitting with the militant groups andactually trying to decipher why they are fighting. People tend to forgetthat the same strategy is being pursued by the Americans for the AfghanTalibans and not surprisingly they have managed to establish contactwith the most wanted mullah Omar. Does that mean that the Americans havealso changed sides and become pro-Taliban?? Similarly, Khan has beenextremely vocal regarding Drone attacks and the violation of ournational and territorial sovereignty. Once again, this voice of concernis regarded as "Anti-American" sentiment. Why do we forget that there isa difference between being anti-American and being pro-Pakistan. WhatKhan says has nothing to do with U.S.A. in fact, he has alwayscriticized our own leadership which he believes is compromised and hencehas granted permission to the Americans to carry out these barbaricacts. History is filled with examples of Anti-war lobbies. Countlesspeople opposed the actions of the U.S. Army in Vietnam, in Britain,around 2 million people protested against the Iraq Invasion. Authors andwriters like Noam Chomsky etc have been extremely vocal about theirreservations on American policies and yet amongst intellectuals andlibertarians worldwide (including Pakistan) Chomsky and others have beenheld in very high esteem. Today these very "intellectuals" label theopposition of the war on terror ( which includes drone attacks) asTaliban supporters. People should realize that there is a starkdifference between being a liberal and being pro-American. Criticizingthe American foreign policies does not mean that you hate America ingeneral. Visit any American college or University and you will realizethat many including the students and professors criticize theircountry's Foreign Policy but none are labeled as traitors orconservatives.

A major objection which attempts to overshadow Imran Khan's politicsthese days is his alleged "romance" with Pakistan's military andintelligence agencies (commonly known as the establishment). For thosewho know Imran Khan's personality, know that he is not someone who willsell himself. Due to his services for the country and his celebrityvalue, Khan was first offered a ministerial post during the Zia regimein 1988. Since then he has received various offers from the two majorparties including top positions. During the 1997 elections Khan was alsooffered a decent number of seats as part of a seat adjustment plan by amajor party. Fast forward to the Musharraf era (2002), and we see thatthe General openly announces that his candidate for the premiership isnone other than Imran Khan. There is one common link in all these"available" opportunities; i.e. they were all rejected by Khan as he didnot want to make it to the top by compromising his principles and hisstand. Today, those who blame him of being close to the ISI and the COASshould consider that when he actually required the backing of analternative force and/or an artificial push he denied it. Why would heprovide anyone with leverage today considering that his popularity isrising exponentially. Also, recent attacks on the military bases andevents similar to those which took place on May 2 have weakened themilitary establishment nationally as well as internationally. The maintask confronting our military today is to rebuild their image as aninstitution which is in control of the multiple crises this countryfaces rather than trying their hand once again in political maneuvering.Besides, politicians who agree on deals with the establishment arealways trying to gain some benefit in return. This return could eitherbe wealth, fame or protection of their heinous crimes. In Khan's case hehas abundance of wealth and fame and has never been accused of anywrongdoing. He is someone who has actually sacrificed a lot includinghis personal life just to be in politics and achieve his goal. To getsomeone of that charachter and reputation to compromise would be termedas a major achievement by the establishment.

Considering the arguments above, I think we can safely establish thatKhan is a true liberal at heart. If you analyze his Dharnas esp the onein the port city of Karachi, you will realize that people from all walksof life showed up. The best part was that Khan was sitting side by sidewith leaders and clerics of different religious schools of thought. Thisgoes to show that religion is not a barrier when national interest is atstake and I think this is what secularism preaches and the same messageis advocated by Islam. Khan always comes under the microscope and isusually over-analyzed in terms of his alliances and inclinations,however, his formula is very simple and basic; i.e. he will ally withanyone and everyone if it is a matter of national interest. Who everspeaks up against the prevalent injustices is a friend and whoever worksagainst national interest and follows dictated policy from abroad is byall means a foe.